Re: Some restructuring of the download section

On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 3:42 PM, Guillaume Lelarge
<guillaume(at)lelarge(dot)info> wrote:
> On Sun, 2012-06-17 at 12:40 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org> writes:
>> > On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 4:39 PM, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> wrote:
>> >> Uh, that part is just incorrect. Several sets of platform packages
>> >> certainly do initdb for you. And AFAIK every single one of them on
>> >> Linux at least do service setup for you.
>>
>> > Hmm, clearly it's been a while since I did a PG installation on Debian
>> > (oddly!), as that does seem to leave the server up and running. I'm
>> > fairly certain it didn't in the past.
>> > RPMs on the other hand, do not.
>>
>> FWIW, Red-Hat-based systems have a strong distro policy against starting
>> servers merely because the package got installed --- the theory is that
>> an "everything" install should not leave the user running a bunch of
>> servers he doesn't know about and maybe hasn't configured securely.
>>
>> I'm a bit surprised to hear that Debian does it differently; although
>> it's possible that they distinguish manual from automatic install
>> scenarios.  It's a little bit saner to do an auto service start if you
>> know that the user explicitly requested this specific package.
>>
>
> When you use aptitude or apt-get to install the server package, it will
> install the binaires, execute initdb, and start the server. I much
> prefer the RPM way of doing it (IOW, not starting the server). Anyway, I
> guess there are both pros and cons in both methods.

Yeah. But it's a good point that since they are different, I should
add info to each of the pages saying exactly how it behaves on that
specific platform.

--
 Magnus Hagander
 Me: http://www.hagander.net/
 Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/